Ala Mohamed Wahra DIM/F/09/01/0012 27/07/2009

Q1. Explain the various rules the courts use in order interpret
and understand the meaning of the words in statutes?

A1. Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation. Some
amount of interpretation is always necessary when case involves a statute. In order to
interpret and understand the meaning of the words in the statute, the courts may rely on
the following rules/tools to assist them:
1) Internal aids (intrinsic aids).
2) External aids (extrinsic aids).
3) Judicial principles governing statutory interpretation.
4) Judicial presumptions.
5) Rule of language.
These rules each take different approaches to interpretation of a statute. Some judges
prefer one rule, while other judges prefer another. Some judges also feel that their role
is to fill the gaps and ambiguities in the law whilst others think that it should be left to
Parliament as the supreme law-maker. As the rules can result in very different
decisions, it is important to understand each of them and how they may be used.

1) Internal aids (intrinsic aids):

This rule refers to the materials found within the statute itself. Internal aids or as known
also as intrinsic aids are matters within an Act itself which may help make the meaning
clearer, an interpretation section. Internal aids may include headings before a group of
sections and any schedules attached to the Act. There are also often marginal notes
explaining different sections. Usually most of these statutes are divided into
parts/chapters/section to make it clearer and more specific.

2) External aids (extrinsic aids):

Legal Framework 3rd Assignment 1

Ala Mohamed Wahra DIM/F/09/01/0012 27/07/2009

This rule refers to the materials that are not found in the statute itself. This can be in
the form of:

➢ Sources include previous Acts of Parliament on the same topic.

➢ Earlier case law.

➢ Dictionaries of the time or textbooks of law. Judges can view some legal scholars
theory’s and may be adopted it.

➢ Historical setting like can refer to the old statute interpretation. For example,
comparing between two acts of the same topic but different date of issue. Must
check of they have the same interpretation or got differences.

➢ Reports of commission or comments or the government inquiry. These may tell why
the statute was made.

➢ International agreement. Extrinsic aids also include international conventions,

regulations or directives which have been implemented by English legislation. It is
thought that English law should be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with
international law.

3) Judicial principles governing statutory interpretation:

This particular rule is broken into 4 tools which assist to interpret the law. Which are:
a) The literal rule.
b) The golden rule.
c) The mischief rule.
d) The purposive approach.

a) The literal rule:

Under this rule the judge considers what the statute actually says, rather than what it
might mean. In order to achieve this, the judge will give the words in the statute a literal

Legal Framework 3rd Assignment 2

Ala Mohamed Wahra DIM/F/09/01/0012 27/07/2009

meaning, that is, their plain ordinary everyday meaning, even if the effect of this is to
produce what might be considered as an otherwise unjust or undesirable outcome. The
literal rule says that the intention of Parliament is best found in the ordinary and natural
meaning of the words used. The approach works well when there is no ambiguity in the
words used in the statute.

The use of the literal rule is illustrated by the case of Fisher v Bell (1960). The
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to offer for sale certain
offensive weapons including flick knives. James Bell, a Bristol shopkeeper, displayed a
weapon of this type in his shop window in the arcade at Broadmead. The Divisional
Court held that he could not be convicted because, giving the words in the statute a
tight literal meaning, Mr. Bell had not offered the knives for sale. In the law of contract,
placing something in a shop window is not technically an offer for sale; it is merely an
invitation to treat. (An invitation to treat is an invitation to others to make offers, as by
displaying goods in a shop window.) It is the customer who makes an offer to the shop
when he proffers money for an item on sale. The court upheld that under the literal
meaning of offer, the shopkeeper had not made an offer to sell and so was not guilty of
the offence. Parliament subsequently changed the law to make it clear that displaying a
flick knife in a shop window was an offence.

b) The golden rule:

This rule is a modification/qualification of the literal rule. It states that if the literal rule
produces an absurdity [completely ridiculous or unreasonable], then the court should
look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The golden rule
works in two ways:

• If the meaning of the words in the Act is clear, but to adopted the meaning would
result in absurdity. Therefore, the literal rule is not used. For example,
Sigsworth (1935) concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The
mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her
estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity
Legal Framework 3rd Assignment 3
Ala Mohamed Wahra DIM/F/09/01/0012 27/07/2009

in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had
murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should
not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant
situation of the son inheriting.

• If the statutory wording is an ambiguity, judges will adopt an interpretation that

produce the least abused result on the bases that it is not the intention of the
parliament to promote absurdity.

c) The mischief rule:

The third rule is simply the process of adding more meanings or definitions to fill the gaps in the
statute. This rule requires the court to look to what the law was before the statute was
passed, in order to discover what gap or mischief the statute was intended to cover.
The court is then required to interpret the statute in such a way to ensure that the gap is
covered.

An example of the use of the mischief rule is found in the case of Corkery v
Carpenter (1951). In 1951 Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month's imprisonment
for being drunk in charge of a bicycle in public. At about 2.45 p.m. on 18 January 1950,
the defendant was drunk and was pushing his pedal bicycle along Broad Street in
Ilfracombe. He was subsequently charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872
with being drunk in charge of a carriage. The 1872 Act made no actual reference to
bicycles. The court elected to use the mischief rule to decide the matter. The purpose of
the Act was to prevent people from using any form of transport on a public highway
whilst in a state of intoxication. The bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore
the user was correctly charged.

d) The purposive approach:

judges use this rule/tool to look at the spirit of the law rather than at the literal details.
This rule focuses on the positive social purpose of the legislation. Here the court is not
just looking to see what the gap was in the old law, it is making a decision as to what

Legal Framework 3rd Assignment 4

Ala Mohamed Wahra DIM/F/09/01/0012 27/07/2009

they felt Parliament meant to achieve. To find out the intention of Parliament and of
ministers and carry it out, and they do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense
of the enactment by opening it up to destructive analysis’. Therefore, it is a “contextual
approach”.

4) Judicial presumptions:

When determining the meaning of particular words, the courts will make certain
presumptions about the law. If the statute clearly states the opposite, then a
presumption will not apply and it is said that the presumption is rebutted. The main
presumptions are:

a) Presumption against changed of common law: It is assumed that the common law
will apply unless Parliament has made it plain in the Act that the common law
has been altered.
b) Presumptions against a statute having retrospective effect: No statute will
apply to past happenings. Each statute will normally only apply from the date it
comes into effect. This is, however, only a presumption and Parliament can
choose to pass a statute with retrospective effect.
c) Presumption that mens rea (‘guilty mind’) is required in criminal offence: Mens
rea is one of the elements that has to be proved for a successful criminal
prosecution. There is a common law rule that no one can be convicted of a
crime unless it is shown they had the required intention to commit it.

5) The rule of Language:

The courts may also choose to look at other words in the statute to ascertain the
meaning of specific words. To enable them to do this they have developed a number of
rules of language to help make the meaning of words and phrases clear. There are
three main rules of language:

Legal Framework 3rd Assignment 5

Ala Mohamed Wahra DIM/F/09/01/0012 27/07/2009

1. Ejusdem generis: This rule states that where there is a list of words which is
followed by general words then the general words are limited to the same kind
of items as the specific words.
2. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Where the express mention of one thing
excludes others. Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general
words, then the Act applies only to the items in the list.
3. Noscitur a sociis: A word is known by the company it keeps. The words must
be looked at in the context and interpreted accordingly. This involves
considering other words in the same section or other sections of the Act.

Reference:

➢ The Open University: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?

id=336226
➢ Legal framework notes of unity college
➢ Catherine Elliott and Frances Quinn. English Legal System, eight editions.

Legal Framework 3rd Assignment 6